Re: Proprietary Software term

[David Kastrup]

Wols Lists <address@hidden> writes:

> On 19/08/18 00:34, David Kastrup wrote:
>> As any theoretical physicist will tell you, anything that involves
>> actual hardware also is maths.
>
> Are you telling me that maths PREscribes reality?

No.  Reality's math is inseparable from reality.  The Schrödinger
equation models state spaces, not states.

> If hardware is maths, then how comes physicists aren't creating the
> reality we would like to live in?

Determining the laws of the universe does not give you a handle for
changing them.

> The whole point of patents is that they describe what happens in
> reality, what we usually do not understand of the maths, or how we tip
> the maths to work in our favour.

The math holds regardless of whether you can think of a way to make use
of it.

> I like to draw a little distinction between mathematics and science.
> A mathematical proof says "this is logically correct". A scientific
> proof says "this is not reality".  Theoretical physicists aren't
> scientists, they're mathematicians.

I doubt they'll be considering your verdict authoritive.

> Patents are there for technologists, for people who deal with
> scientific proofs, not for mathematicians dealing with mathematical
> proofs. A patent deals with "this is how we get reality to do what we
> want", not with "this is what logic says should happen".
>
> Newton is easy to prove MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT. He is also easy to
> prove SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG.

So you say that Special (and General) Relativity should be patentable?

-- 
David Kastrup